Ammo For Sale

« « Ninjas stop mugging | Home | Enough » »

Daley on McDonald: Probably gonna lose

Brings a smile to my face. If you’re thinking he’s gonna get all Bloomberg and loosen the gun laws in anticipation, not likely:

We’ll be looking at local ordinances. We’ll have to wait for the decision to come down and what they will say in the decision

And, next, they will check your rights at the door over insurance:

On that score, the city is considering requiring gun owners to carry a level of liability insurance.

“You’ll have to show that you have insurance before you can purchase and register a gun, somewhat similar to what you do before you buy a car,” said Prof. Harold Krent, Kent College of Law dean.

22 Responses to “Daley on McDonald: Probably gonna lose”

  1. Shootin' Buddy Says:

    Ah, Professor Krent, professor of administrative law at Chicago-Kent and known for making the simple complex.

    Insurance? Just like my defamation insurance for my computer?

  2. Madrocketscientist Says:

    The insurance requirement isn’t all that bad of an idea, as long as it isn’t onerous (I have a healthy umbrella liability policy on my homeowners insurance just in case).

  3. Freiheit Says:

    Madrocketscientist it’s not a bad idea, but it should not be the law.

  4. JKB Says:

    Madrocketscientist, as stated insurance is not a bad personal protection choice. Got to protect your assets.

    However, have there been a number of judgements against gun owners who were then unable to make the other party whole due to financial deficiencies? If not, then what protection does the special gun insurance provide? No doubt Bloomberg would want to set the cost of said insurance since the risk of a payout would be low meaning the cost of the insurance should be low.

  5. JKB Says:

    similar to what you do before you buy a car

    You’re required to buy insurance before you can purchase a car in New York? Everywhere I’ve lived, you had to have liability insurance to operate your vehicle upon the public streets.

    What is it with the law school types that they can’t understand auto insurance. First Obama, now this law school dean. Don’t they teach insurance law in law school anymore?

  6. dustydog Says:

    I hope and pray that the Supreme Court takes Daley’s attitudes into account, and flatly rejects all his regulatory schemes. Forbid fees, registration, permitting, gun-free zones, all the infringements.

  7. Paul Says:

    If you follow the four rules…no need for insurance.

    Insurance gets it in the neck because is it big business and no one really knows what insurance does. It is not to make you rich, it is simply mitigating risk.

    Course risk is not really very well understood either.

    I hope Daly get the pox.

  8. straightarrow Says:

    MacDonald will be like Heller. “You can’t do that. But here is what you can do that will leave the situation unchanged in fact, if not in law.”

  9. Pathfinder Says:

    Madrocketscientist Says:
    May 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am

    The insurance requirement isnít all that bad of an idea, as long as it isnít onerous (I have a healthy umbrella liability policy on my homeowners insurance just in case).

    Good for you. However, the gummint long ago – in direct violation of the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness thing – that driving was a privilege.

    Owning guns – and that includes buying and selling them – are rights, not a privilege. Is there any difference between insurance before buying a gun and the old Poll Taxes or voting qualification tests that used to be given (and which were subsequently knocked down as un-Constitutional)?

    Prove to the gummint anything before I buy a gun? Eff you Professor Krent and the horse you rode in on.

    It is a terrible idea, just another way for Dickie and his minions to restrict your rights in his fiefdom.

  10. kahr40 Says:

    If it’s coming out of the Daily Administration it’s intended to fuck gun owners and by definition NOT a good idea.

  11. wildbill Says:

    If we are going to tax civil rights, lets bring back the poll tax. That’ll keep the “undesireables” from infuencing the gov’t. Or start taxing all those stupid Christian churches, or requiring insurance to speak your mind. Where will it end?

  12. ATLien Says:

    the only answer is to destroy daley. preferably into teeny tiny pieces. then burn them. then piss on them. i’m the only one that believes tyrants should be eradicated, it seems.

  13. Sean OH Says:

    Where are you going to buy this insurance? My state farm agent dropped my homeowners coverage when I refused to get rid of my firearms. I now have insurance through Nationwide who apparently doesnt car
    e (and I didnt ask).

  14. Kim du Toit Says:

    “My state farm agent dropped my homeowners coverage when I refused to get rid of my firearms.”

    State Farm = anti-gun Illinois liberals. No gun owner should be buying insurance from them.

  15. Lyle Says:

    Uh, yeah; you donít even need a driver’s license to buy a car, and certainly you don’t need insurance. If you FINANCE a new car, the creditor will require that you have insurance, so as to protect their investment.

    Once all those public shooting ranges are built in every community in the country, they can start requiring insurance to use the public ranges. There’s your analogy, kids.

    Sean OH; interesting. I have State Farm home owner’s, and have a specific rider for all the guns.

    Shootin’ Buddy; “Just like my defamation insurance for my computer?” Just give them time…

  16. NukemJim Says:

    “I hope and pray that the Supreme Court takes Daleyís attitudes into account, and flatly rejects all his regulatory schemes. Forbid fees, registration, permitting, gun-free zones, all the infringements.”

    Why should they do different than in the Heller Case?

    Mr Heller still has to keep his gun disassembled and unloaded.

    I was amazed to learn that but I have it from several different sources with nothing that I can find to contradict it (Much as I would love to find some proof that the Supreme Court does do their job in interpeting the constitution.)


  17. Xrlq Says:

    In NC you can’t even get a driver license without insurance from a carrier admitted in NC. I learned that the hard way when I moved here.

    PF: forget about rights vs. privileges; courts have long held that the right to travel is fundamental, and banning people from driving would surely impact the exercise of that right in a big way. An insurance requirement for gun carry would probably be constitutional, and given how regulated the industry is, the premium should be quite low if indeed you have to buy separate insurance at all (if you have homeowners, condo or rental insurance, you’re probably covered already). My main concern with an insurance mandate is that as a practical matter, once it’s known all legal gun owners have insurance, ambulance chasers will flock to every “victim” of gun violence, most of whom are criminals who got shot in lawful or not-quite-lawful self defense. And I don’t want criminal scum to collect either way.

  18. emdfl Says:

    And of course with gun owners required to have insurance, it’s an easy way to find all of them…

  19. Billll Says:

    I think I could go for the insurance requirement if it came with a literacy and civics knowledge requirement for voting.

    That and a photo I.D.

  20. Tirno Says:

    I think Hizzoner will be rather disappointed to find that after the insurance agents run through the actuarial calculations the insurance cost for the pool of affected people with be about $5/year. And $4 of that is just the administrative fees and cost of printing the policy.

    Insurance won’t cover when a crime is committed (i.e. not a self-defense situation). What’s left is very low risk to the point of not bothering.

    Better to require insurance to own a bucket that could possible be filled with water that someone could possibly drown in.

  21. Chas Says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “Yeah! We’ll stick gun owners with a costly insurance requirement! Kind of like the poll tax that was used to deny black people the vote. Only, uh, we don’t want to be making that comparison. It might not go over so well.”

  22. John Says:

    If we’re going to require insurance for the truly dangerous, no convict should be allowed parole without a minimum liability policy.

    Convicted sex offender, mandatory insurance for life.

    Politician, self insurance, IE. pay for any mistakes out of your own pocket.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges